Timeline for Is there a reasonable definition of the height of a transcendental number
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 13, 2011 at 22:38 | comment | added | Joel David Hamkins | In my answer mathoverflow.net/questions/53724/… to a similar question, I describe several commonly used hierarchies for measuring the complexity of transcendental real numbers. | |
| Oct 13, 2011 at 20:29 | vote | accept | Shaye | ||
| Oct 13, 2011 at 19:58 | answer | added | Adrien | timeline score: 2 | |
| Oct 13, 2011 at 19:47 | answer | added | S. Carnahan♦ | timeline score: 4 | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 17:56 | comment | added | François Brunault | The (logarithmic) height of a rational number $x$ is roughly the number of digits needed to write $x$. Given an arbitrary real number $x$, one could try to define the ``height'' of $x$ as the minimal number of symbols needed to write to $x$. There are two problems with this definition : 1) it is not precise - what expressions are allowed ? 2) it is very ineffective... | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 10:21 | comment | added | dke | There is Mahler's classification en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… which roughly speaking distinguishes in terms of approximation properties by algebraic numbers. That's possibly rather coarser than what you are asking for though. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 8:25 | comment | added | David Lehavi | For what it's worth - the Kolmogorov complexity of the number in question. Does it help in any way ? probably not. | |
| Oct 12, 2011 at 8:06 | history | asked | Shaye | CC BY-SA 3.0 |